The Great Hambino

Like most symbolic gestures and traditions, I mock it when others do it (haha Salvador Perez LOSER) but think it's cool when we do it. Give him the C and Row The Boat

None of them would ever subject themselves to being forced to watch that much baseball

It's an easy decision to tender him. But I think more than any other player on the roster, it makes sense to forego trading him this offseason to see if he can build back some value after the way his season ended. Part of the argument for trading guys like Lopez and Ryan now is that their trade value is more likely than not to go down as time goes on, just due to the reduced control they come with in each passing trade window. I don't think that applies to Ober to the same degree. Plus, if by some miracle this team is legitimately competitive come the trade deadline, you can simply keep him

2019 world series. it was weird

This is the player more than any other where I think it might make sense to keep around for opening day, but intend to trade at the deadline. With the way his season ended, I think he has a chance to recoup some trade value with a strong first half. Plus, if by some miracle they're in legitimate contention at the deadline, they can keep him. Part of the argument for trading Lopez/Ryan now is that their trade value drops with each passing trade window. I don't think that applies to Ober, certainly not as much anyway

It obviously won't happen, but Flacco getting traded to the Ravens in time to play the Steelers would be the funniest thing possible

Well, it would get him out of the radio booth - none of the other candidates can make that claim. So I guess he has that going for him

"Power wins in the playoffs" means out-homering your opponent wins in the playoffs, which also factors in your pitching staff's ability to prevent homers. The Bomba Squad would agree, since they were bounced by a team that out-homered them in their series and hit a whopping one fewer homer than them in the regular season. They weren't gonna match the Yankees' scoring output of 10, 8, and 5 runs with sac bunts and hit-and-runs Sorry, but I don't think a list of regular season homers - four of which were in the same season, which would make it kinda difficult for them all to go to the World Series - without consideration of homers allowed is proof that power doesn't win in the postseason Speaking of 2019, that World Series was won by the Nationals, which didn't hit as many regular season homers. But they won with power in the playoffs. They beat those Astros in part because they matched them in homers. In fact, all seven games in that series were won by the team that hit more homers. Every single one. You're gonna look at that and tell me power doesn't win in the postseason? If you do, we're just gonna have to disagree here. After last night's games, teams that out-homer their opponent are now 21-4 this postseason. That's an .840 winning percentage - a 136 win pace. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Good point. The 2019 Yankees had no power. Power wins in the playoffs. If you think otherwise, show your work. Yankees out-homered the Twins that series, BTW

I think they tried to address both present and future gains in the trade, they just did a really poor job of identifying the present pieces. They got five pieces back in the trade. Three were for the present (Topa, DeSclafani, $4MM to spend) and two were for the future (Gonzalez, Bowen). On paper, there was some logic in reallocating current resources given how Polanco, Lewis, and Julien all looked at the end of 2023. But in an effort to plug multiple present holes, they spread the return too thin and as a result, didn't plug any. If the present pieces of the return had been more concentrated on a more reliable single piece as opposed to a questionable reliever, a giant red flag of a starter, and a utilityman's worth of cash, that could've worked out better for them in 2024. They would've been better served doing something that more resembled the Arraez/Lopez trade. As I said earlier, I think you can say that they were justified in moving Polanco even within a contention window, but also botched identifying the return. Both things can be true

For those talking as if the Twins can just unilaterally impose an extension on Ryan: - Do you really see the Twins extending someone for top dollar into their mid-30s after they just paid $33MM to make Correa's contract go away? - For what reason would Ryan accept an extension offer from this team? There's no reason to think he'd give them any sort of a discount; in fact, they'd likely have to pay a not-insignificant premium to get him to agree to it. Do you see the Twins paying a premium for anything right now? I don't. They're not going to be competitive next year, regardless of how much wishful thinking gets projected onto internal prospect development. 2027 might not even happen. After that, he's gone for no more than a comp pick. They'd get waaaaaaaay more value than a comp pick by trading him now. I can understand the thinking of retaining him for now while revisiting trading him at the deadline, but I think there's a better trading market in the offseason for starters (there's a broader market of potential buyers, and teams have more avenues to make improvements elsewhere or replace what's traded away with free agency). As an aside, I think the trade deadline is a better time to trade away relievers (while not every contender needs a starting pitching upgrade to the degree that they'd use their scarce trade chips there in lieu of other improvements, everyone can always use more bullpen help). That's the argument for trading him now. I don't want it because I like watching him pitch, but I think it might be the right thing to do given the direction I think they're going

There's another thing the Brewers have in common with the 2000's Twins: a lack of playoff success. Before finally breaking through and winning the division series in 5 games against a Cubs team that basically ran out of starting pitching, they had been bounced in their first playoff round the last 5 times they made the playoffs (2019-2024, excluding missing the playoffs in 2022). Just like the piranha Twins, they could small ball their way through a relatively weak division in the regular season, but kept failing against the mashers they'd face in the playoffs. Pitching to contact against mashers doesn't end well. So far this postseason in 34 games, teams that out-homered their opponents are 20-4 (10 times both teams had the same number of homers). The Brewers out-homered the Cubs in all of their wins and neither of their losses. They haven't small-balled their way to any postseason success, and that trend looks like it's gonna continue against the Dodgers and their lineup of overpowering pitchers. If you want playoff success, power is an absolute necessity And the Twins have been moving away from an all-or-nothing approach the last couple of years. After setting the strikeout record in 2023, they decreased their strikeouts (1,623 in 2023; 1,306 in 2024; 1,372 in 2025) and increased their percentage of balls put in play (62% in 2023, 69% in 2024, 68% in 2025) substantially. They've also scored substantially fewer runs (4.80/game in 2023, 4.59/game in 2024, 4.19/game in 2025) because they've hit substantially fewer homers (233 in 2023, 183 in 2024, 191 in 2025). I wouldn't exactly call that a success.

Hey Mike, I just had the same issue pop up for me, only it was on my laptop browser (chrome on a Mac) and not my phone. Like you, this was the only site where this was happening to me. Tried restarting, running updates, etc but it kept blinking grey, But when I deleted cookies specifically for this site and then logged back in, the issue went away. Hope this helps. It really is annoying

My best guess: they wanted a player coming back just so they could technically call it a trade, so the Astros sent literally the least valuable healthy player in their system as the return

It's only a sample size of one, but Rocco was hired before the 2018 World Series had finished. I don't see any reason to believe they'll wait that long to hire the next manager, especially if they've already begun interviewing candidates.

I'm intrigued by Rowson having spent time under multiple organizations since he's been with the Twins. A lot of opportunities to learn different approaches and ideas that could potentially be blended with the familiarity he has from working under this FO in the past. The combination of familiarity and fresh ideas could help him stand out among other candidates. Kinda tricky to evaluate Shelton's time with the Pirates - as you said, it's a pretty tough environment to succeed in. Although they apparently liked the change in voice his replacement brought to the clubhouse, since they elevated him from interim to full-time manager after the season. That could also be Nutting not wanting to spend money on a search (wouldn't put it past him), but it's tough to really tell.

I'd like to see him swing at more than 56% of middle-middle pitches. That could maybe help his power - and overall - numbers without any swing adjustments

I wanted Polanco moved in the 2023 offseason. He was a true butcher in the field that point - remember, Correa's amazing throw home against the Blue Jays came off Polo completely whiffing on a chopper - and Lewis/Julien had shown actual promise at the ML level - it wasn't just theoretical like it would be with, say, Jenkins now. Within the context of having to shed payroll while still trying to compete, moving on made sense at the time. But the return was weird. A hodgepodge of high-risk players outside of their primes (both before and after), plus some cash savings. A real four-nickels-for-a-quarter sort of deal. Even if you limit the post-mortem analysis to Polanco's underwhelming 2024 performance (all his clutchy clutchness and .651 OPS didn't exactly take the Mariners to the promised land), it's a real stretch to call this trade a win so far for the Twins. But what's interesting to me in this trade is its illustration of how tricky it can be to grade a trade even after the fact. Do you count Polanco's 2025 performance in the trade grade? He would've been a free agent after 2024, and after the year he had and the FA budget the Twins were working with, it's incredibly doubtful he would've been retained. But did Seattle ultimately sign him for 2025 because they had the inside track with him already being in house? What about the cash savings it generated? Do you ding the Twins for ostensibly using it on Manny Margot, or should that be considered a separate transaction independent of the trade? And how do you discount whatever Gonzalez brings to the table when it will take years to see the fruits of that aspect of the trade? So can the Twins have been right to trade him, but still lose the trade? I think so. Do follow-up contracts count in trade evaluation? I don't think they should, but I can understand the argument otherwise. Is there much to learn from a trade that was so oddly-structured to begin with? I don't know if there is

I think the marketing aspect of a move like this is getting overstated here. Who is coming to Target Field that otherwise wouldn't be just to watch Torii Hunter manage? Molitor was adored during his playing days too. That didn't keep the turnstiles humming when he was leading the team to 103 losses. And where exactly has he demonstrated this ability to "blend data-driven preparation with emotional intelligence"? It's a mighty big leap to think he can, or even desires to, deftly blend old-school and modern analytics just because he happened to play at a time when modern analytics were starting to get mainstream attention. Can he pull it off? Who knows, but managers with much more experience coaching than Hunter that also played in the same time period as Hunter haven't been able to. But we're just supposed to assume he can because ... he made lots of diving catches? He has an infectious smile? The Angels organization is such a model franchise to learn under? I'm not buying it And what were the circumstances under which he left the Twins in 2023? He knew as well as anyone the kind of dumpster fire the Angels organization has become. Either he left the Twins willingly for the Angels (with the caveat that I suppose there could have been some sort of promotion - extra special assistant?), or the Twins were done with his services. All this doesn't add up to "the perfect manager" to me. The perfect manager would be a manager, or at least someone with actual coaching bona fides.

A) Now I can't unsee it B) That might be written exactly as intended ("until Gleeman's morale improves")

I think they have one, they just haven't admitted to themselves that he's a reliever yet: Connor Prielipp He was already significantly injured when drafted and has gone on to average less than 40 IP/year over the last three seasons. The odds of him developing and maintaining the durability to be a consistent, reliable starter across multiple seasons have got to be pretty low at this point. If they intend to compete next year (which I think is a pipe dream but whatev), then they need someone young to step in and be an effective high-leverage reliever immediately. I think he's in the best position of anyone currently in the organization to do just that

In 1999 Tom Brady ranked 38th in I-A passing yards and had fewer yards per attempt than the great Billy Cockerham. Maybe it just doesn't apply to Michigan QBs

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this guy specifically as this is the first time I've heard his name, but this is absolutely the type of candidate I want them looking at. Experience with multiple coaching roles and time spent under a boss with championship pedigree. Time spent working with young players. In a position where ML manager is the logical next step. Being bilingual doesn't hurt

There it is. They're not gonna trust either one to push the ball downfield, but at least Gabriel can get rid of it on time. I do still think that Sanders will find his way onto the field at some point this year via ownership involvement.

The next team planning on picking a QB with 1-1 should maybe consider bringing in a new coach before the pick is made. If you're picking #1, there's a good chance a coaching change is justified. Of course, as I look for recent examples where a new coach was paired with a #1 overall QB, the most recent one was ... Urban Meyer. Before that, Kliff Kingsbury. Maybe you just shouldn't want to be taken #1 overall at QB.